On Feb 1, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Chris McDonough wrote:
Tom Hoffman wrote:
On Fri, Feb 1, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Chris McDonough <chrism@plope.com> wrote:
I'll take a risk by stating the obvious.
If there will continue to be a release schedule for "Zope 3, the appserver" It would reduce confusion to new users greatly to give the appserver release a name other than Zope.
Eg.
Current name Proposed name ------------ ------------- "Zope2" -> Zope "Zope3, the libraries" -> Zope libraries "Zope3 the appserver" -> Frobnozz Isn't this release sort of the last of its kind, though? Kind of a weird time for a name change
I've heard that rumored, but there's nothing indicating that in the release announcement. There are forward looking statements in there: "tarballs... for the last 3.4 series and probably for 3.5 as well." I take this to mean that there's an intention to have a 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 release, etc, but past 3.5, the release won't be packaged as a tarball. If this is the case, even if it's just for 3.5, it would sure help reduce confusion to give this "release of packages" (even if it's just a buildout and the KGS for that release) a name other than "Zope".
Or if not, it would seem like there would be a better argument for the new approach having a new name than the old one.
I'm not sure which is "the new approach" and which is the "old one"?
I'm glad you brought this up. Some observations: - I think the goal of these releases is less to provide an application than to provide a possibly useful collection of some libraries. This is similar to the Python standard library. Some people see significant value in this. I believe that other web frameworks, like TurboGears, also make releases that assemble a bunch of eggs, so people can use their frameworks without having to download eggs from PyPI. - The new approach to making a release would be to create an egg-based release, probably building on zc.sourcerelease. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation